xe_survivabi...is_requested(9)

πŸ“¦ version 7.3.1, in nixpkgs unstable

✨ NAME ✨

xe_survivability_mode_is_requested β€” bestie, this is the vibe check that tells you whether survivability mode (the one firmware or userspace was like "hey can we turn this on?") is actually possible to enable πŸ’…

(also hi, you're reading the xe_survivability_mode_is_requested(9) page, welcome πŸŽ€)


🌸 SYNOPSIS 🌸

bool xe_survivability_mode_is_requested (struct xe_device *xe );

okay so it's a bool. it either slays (true) or it doesn't (false). no in-between, no "it's complicated" πŸ¦‹


πŸ’– ARGUMENTS πŸ’–

  • xe β€” the xe device instance. literally the device we're asking about, that's it, that's the whole arg 🫢

🧚 DESCRIPTION 🧚

So this function pulls up and reads two things, no cap:

  1. configfs πŸ“‹
  2. boot status from Pcode πŸ’Ύ

that's the whole job. it reads them, and based on what it finds it tells you whether survivability mode is a go or a no-go ✨


πŸ”₯ RETURN πŸ”₯

Returns true when both of these line up:

  • platform support is available βœ…
  • the boot status indicates failure πŸ’€

…or if survivability mode is straight-up requested πŸ™‹β€β™€οΈ

Otherwise? false. that's it. that's the answer ✌️

ngl, read that carefully β€” the "boot status indicates failure" part is doing a lot of work in that sentence and it's not the same thing as just "someone asked for it" πŸ‘€

πŸ‘‘ SEE ALSO πŸ‘‘


and that's the page, bestie πŸŽ€βœ¨

sign-off szn: this chaotic little beauty lives under ./drivers/gpu/drm/xe, dated October 2026, and it's filed as xe_survivabi...is_requested(9) in case you were wondering why the title looks like it got cut off mid-sentence β€” it did, it's giving "typed it too fast in the group chat" πŸ˜­πŸ’œ

πŸ“¦ where this page comes from